Andy, angie: I have a few critiques, some of it may be style/taste, some of it may be ways to improve and/or have the subjects (IMO) look better. Plus I'm in a hurry so I'm not going to buffer it with words- nothing personal
#2 her dark eye shadow, the steep angle of light (darkening the eyes more) and her nose shadow does not flatter her face. the guy is well lit.
#3 the light needs to be aimed at her or him more.. it's too middling and leaves too much tension in my eyes, they wander around.
#4 is well lit, just wish someone was looking at someone or the camera
#5 wish the strobe was not lighting an empty spot.. just from a basic perspective it looks like you 'missed'
The harsh lighting in 8 is interesting but again wish someone was looking at the camera.
My attention is drawn to the harsh lighting because the couple is so disengaged, which I know is intentional. My thought is it is kinda like fisheye.. cool for a couple shots, but not all of them. Thus I like 6 and 7 better on a 'feeling' perspective.
I like them. Oh wait their mine On a side note. Client just wrote back raving about them. I think many of the complaints are stylistic in nature. Good thing is we dont all shoot or think the same.
Great to hear that the client is in love with them Angie - that's all that really matters!
Andy brought up a good point that these are normal people not models. It's easy to forget that. How many of us would feel comfortable enough or know what to do to get a great shot if we were in front of the camera, after all?
Love the differing views. From my experience these images will work well on our website. People will either like this kind of work or look for some other style.
I actually almost universally love your work, however I'm not a huge fan of these. First time i've ever seen a session of yours that I wasn't really feeling. You guys are awesome though.
Although I take some issue with the posing, my biggest gripes are the lighting, the moody atmosphere around your subjects doesn't match with the lighting on them, it "seems" a bit harsh and uncontrolled. Some grids and beauty dishes would've worked well imho,. However if this is the look you're going for, than obviously I can't judge or say you've done anything wrong except not necessarily catering to my tastes.
Andy Wood wrote:
Cole, exactly it was the kind of shoot she wanted. How many guys do you know that would do this kind of a shoot for their girl. Most want to go home drink a beer and watch a game. These are normal people not models trying to get something different.
Actually just this weekend I received an inquiry from a bride requesting an e-shoot based around retro glam, with a hint of noir, the whole thing is her beau's idea.
I know that Andy and Angie are very respected around these parts and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything to anyone. However I do think that Angie's statement about most of the "complaints" being stylistic in nature to perhaps not effectively address the lighting/technical concerns that some folks are expressing. It seems to me that in many cases while the lighting is contributing to the mood and style that the client requested it is actually working against the effectiveness of the images in many cases.
Take for example the look of the overall session - clearly it is low-key by design. In a low-key image the viewer's eye is immediately going to go to the brightest point in the image which ought to be the point of interest in a highly effective image.
For example, in image 1 the brightest point is actually the wall behind the girl's face, and the fact that her face is turned predominantly away from camera gives the viewer a confused image. Should they be looking at the guy first, who is lower key, the girl who is turned away and lost in the brighter wall? I think that the pose and lighting work against the effectiveness of the image.
In image 2 they are basically fighting the same thing in a different way. Granted, the pose/expressions on the subjects don't help alot for many folks, but the brightest point in the image is the right side of the frame. Since most of us critiquing the images are Westerners we are accustomed to scanning from left to right. Putting the brightest point in a low-key image on the extreme right and then trying to lead interest leftward causes more un-intentional visual tension. Its a shame because the poses naturally lead from left-to-right effectively but the light is working against the great posing.
Image 3 has a similar issue - brightest points are the wainscoting on the sides of the wall drawing your eye horizontally while the photographer almost certainly wants you eye going from the bottom-to-the-top or vice/versa viewing the subjects and reflections. Plus, the subjects in the up-down axis are much darker than the walls in the left-right axis which fights the posed point of interest.
Number 4 is better but the brightness of the wall behind him and the loud pattern on the wall really detract and the image would be rocking if that wall wasn't so bright. Stay tuned because they totally nail this in image 7.
I know some folks will fight me on this but 5 suffers from the same thing s the others though not as badly. I would rather see the subject's faces a little brighter and the wall behind them a little darker to help emphasis but some might disagree. I think this one would be more effective with a different lighting ratio that favored the subject instead of the background.
Image 6 is getting better though I'd like to see the window sill darkened down a bit. See how the image flows perfectly from left-to-right to the intended point of interest through composition and posing? Good stuff, but the lighting could be improved by darkening the background a bit.
I'll skip 7 for a second and hit 8 because I want to end on a good note. I think 8 suffers alot from the lighting. What is the brightest point in this image? Its the bck of her neck and jawbone and not their faces. This draws the viewer's eye somewhere we don't intend for it to linger and really adds weight to her face. Gotta cry foul on this one - would be better (imho!) without the light coming from camera-left.
So let's talk about 7 because it gets it all right. The image is composed to lead not only left-to-right but far-to-near. We start at the back of the frame and the brightest thing is the girl's face (!) and the background is nicely separated but darker than the subject. Then, her eyeline and the depth of the image lead us right to the next brightest point of the image which is the guy - perfect! We can ignore the bright spots on the right side wall because they don't overpower and we've been lead properly through the image. This is good composition and good lighting.
Ultimately I get that the client wanted a certain style and I think the style was achieved but at the cost of composition and effective emphasis. I think that the lighting, while it creates a great mood really detracts in many ways from the success of the images. I think that's why there was some conflict over these images from the posts - the light helped in some ways and hurt in others and some folks may have had a hard time articulating that.
I won't belabor the posing/expression thing because I hate to get involved in the "be kind/don't judge" discussion that's been going on. Suffice it to say that I agree that politeness is dying but it is an issue in these images. The subjects are admittedly not models but nevertheless they also do look pretty uncomfortable and it does detract from the images. Whether we like it or not the final image is the responsibility of the photographer and we can't afford to place blame on the subject (even sometimes when it is warranted!). Hard to say what caused this but there is an issue with client preparation/comfort which does impact these images.
Sorry for the long-windedness. Again, I'm not even sure if an extended analysis of these images is either appreciated or welcome. I certainly mean no disrespect to the photographers and some folks may think that given our respective reputations on this forum I may be fighting beyond my weight limit. Nevertheless I did think there were some technical and lighting issues beyond style or taste at stake here that probably should be discussed in a critique. Come to think of it, a critique wasn't requested in the initial post. So before I go any further, please accept a preemptive mea culpa.
TRReichman wrote:
I know that Andy and Angie are very respected around these parts and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything to anyone but I do think that Angie's statement about most of the "complaints" being stylistic in nature to perhaps not tell the whole story. I also think that many folks have stated that Andy and Angie are great with light and the lighting in these images seems to have been deemed beyond reproach but it seems to me that in many cases while the lighting is contributing to the mood and style that the client requested it is actually working against the effectiveness of the images in many cases.
Take for example the look of the overall session - clearly it is low-key by design. In a low-key image the viewer's eye is immediately going to go to the brightest point in the image which ought to be the point of interest in a highly effective image.
For example, in image 1 the brightest point is actually the wall behind the girl's face, and the fact that her face is turned predominantly away from camera gives the viewer a confused image. Should they be looking at the guy first, who is lower key, the girl who is turned away and lost in the brighter wall? I think that the pose and lighting work against the effectiveness of the image.
In image 2 they are basically fighting the same thing in a different way. Granted, the pose/expressions on the subjects don't help alot for many folks, but the brightest point in the image is the right side of the frame. Since most of us critiquing the images are Westerners we are accustomed to scanning from left to right. Putting the brightest point in a low-key image on the extreme right and then trying to lead interest leftward causes more un-intentional visual tension. Its a shame because the poses naturally lead from left-to-right effectively but the light is working against the great posing.
Image 3 has a similar issue - brightest points are the wainscoting on the sides of the wall drawing your eye horizontally while the photographer almost certainly wants you eye going from the bottom-to-the-top or vice/versa viewing the subjects and reflections. Plus, the subjects in the up-down axis are much darker than the walls in the left-right axis which fights the posed point of interest.
Number 4 is better but the brightness of the wall behind him and the loud pattern on the wall really detract and the image would be rocking if that wall wasn't so bright. Stay tuned because they totally nail this in image 7.
I know some folks will fight me on this but 5 suffers from the same thing s the others though not as badly. I would rather see the subject's faces a little brighter and the wall behind them a little darker to help emphasis but some might disagree. I think this one would be more effective with a different lighting ratio that favored the subject instead of the background.
Image 6 is getting better though I'd like to see the window sill darkened down a bit. See how the image flows perfectly from left-to-right to the intended point of interest through composition and posing? Good stuff, but the lighting could be improved by darkening the background a bit.
I'll skip 7 for a second and hit 8 because I want to end on a good note. I think 8 suffers alot from the lighting. What is the brightest point in this image? Its the bck of her neck and jawbone and not their faces. This draws the viewer's eye somewhere we don't intend for it to linger and really adds weight to her face. Gotta cry foul on this one - would be better (imho!) without the light coming from camera-left.
So let's talk about 7 because it gets it all right. The image is composed to lead not only left-to-right but far-to-near. We start at the back of the frame and the brightest thing is the girl's face (!) and the background is nicely separated but darker than the subject. Then, her eyeline and the depth of the image lead us right to the next brightest point of the image which is the guy - perfect! We can ignore the bright spots on the right side wall because they don't overpower and we've been lead properly through the image. This is good composition and good lighting.
Ultimately I get that the client wanted a certain style and I think the style was achieved but at the cost of composition and effective emphasis. I think that the lighting, while it creates a great mood really detracts in many ways from the success of the images. I think that's why there was some conflict over these images from the posts - the light helped in some ways and hurt in others and some folks may have had a hard time articulating that.
I won't belabor the posing/expression thing because I hate to get involved in the "be kind/don't judge" discussion that's been going on. Suffice it to say that I agree that politeness is dying but it is an issue in these images. The subjects are admittedly not models but nevertheless they also do look pretty uncomfortable and it does detract from the images. Whether we like it or not the final image is the responsibility of the photographer and we can't afford to place blame on the subject (even sometimes when it is warranted!). Hard to say what caused this but there is an issue with client preparation/comfort which does impact these images.
Sorry for the long-windedness. Again, I'm not even sure if an extended analysis of these images is either appreciated or welcome. I certainly mean no disrespect to the photographers and some folks may think that given our respective reputations on this forum I may be fighting beyond my weight limit. Nevertheless I did think there were some technical and lighting issues beyond style or taste at stake here that probably should be discussed in a critique. Come to think of it, a critique wasn't requested in the initial post. So before I go any further, please accept a preemptive mea culpa.
That's a heck of a valuable critique. Whether or not you (OP, everyone else) choose to agree with that criticism, its outstandingly well-formulated and is worth consideration. Thanks for taking the time Todd... its posts like this that make this forum worth coming back to.
TRReichman wrote:
I know that Andy and Angie are very respected around these parts and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything to anyone. However I do think that Angie's statement about most of the "complaints" being stylistic in nature to perhaps not effectively address the lighting/technical concerns that some folks are expressing. It seems to me that in many cases while the lighting is contributing to the mood and style that the client requested it is actually working against the effectiveness of the images in many cases.
Take for example the look of the overall session - clearly it is low-key by design. In a low-key image the viewer's eye is immediately going to go to the brightest point in the image which ought to be the point of interest in a highly effective image.
For example, in image 1 the brightest point is actually the wall behind the girl's face, and the fact that her face is turned predominantly away from camera gives the viewer a confused image. Should they be looking at the guy first, who is lower key, the girl who is turned away and lost in the brighter wall? I think that the pose and lighting work against the effectiveness of the image.
In image 2 they are basically fighting the same thing in a different way. Granted, the pose/expressions on the subjects don't help alot for many folks, but the brightest point in the image is the right side of the frame. Since most of us critiquing the images are Westerners we are accustomed to scanning from left to right. Putting the brightest point in a low-key image on the extreme right and then trying to lead interest leftward causes more un-intentional visual tension. Its a shame because the poses naturally lead from left-to-right effectively but the light is working against the great posing.
Image 3 has a similar issue - brightest points are the wainscoting on the sides of the wall drawing your eye horizontally while the photographer almost certainly wants you eye going from the bottom-to-the-top or vice/versa viewing the subjects and reflections. Plus, the subjects in the up-down axis are much darker than the walls in the left-right axis which fights the posed point of interest.
Number 4 is better but the brightness of the wall behind him and the loud pattern on the wall really detract and the image would be rocking if that wall wasn't so bright. Stay tuned because they totally nail this in image 7.
I know some folks will fight me on this but 5 suffers from the same thing s the others though not as badly. I would rather see the subject's faces a little brighter and the wall behind them a little darker to help emphasis but some might disagree. I think this one would be more effective with a different lighting ratio that favored the subject instead of the background.
Image 6 is getting better though I'd like to see the window sill darkened down a bit. See how the image flows perfectly from left-to-right to the intended point of interest through composition and posing? Good stuff, but the lighting could be improved by darkening the background a bit.
I'll skip 7 for a second and hit 8 because I want to end on a good note. I think 8 suffers alot from the lighting. What is the brightest point in this image? Its the bck of her neck and jawbone and not their faces. This draws the viewer's eye somewhere we don't intend for it to linger and really adds weight to her face. Gotta cry foul on this one - would be better (imho!) without the light coming from camera-left.
So let's talk about 7 because it gets it all right. The image is composed to lead not only left-to-right but far-to-near. We start at the back of the frame and the brightest thing is the girl's face (!) and the background is nicely separated but darker than the subject. Then, her eyeline and the depth of the image lead us right to the next brightest point of the image which is the guy - perfect! We can ignore the bright spots on the right side wall because they don't overpower and we've been lead properly through the image. This is good composition and good lighting.
Ultimately I get that the client wanted a certain style and I think the style was achieved but at the cost of composition and effective emphasis. I think that the lighting, while it creates a great mood really detracts in many ways from the success of the images. I think that's why there was some conflict over these images from the posts - the light helped in some ways and hurt in others and some folks may have had a hard time articulating that.
I won't belabor the posing/expression thing because I hate to get involved in the "be kind/don't judge" discussion that's been going on. Suffice it to say that I agree that politeness is dying but it is an issue in these images. The subjects are admittedly not models but nevertheless they also do look pretty uncomfortable and it does detract from the images. Whether we like it or not the final image is the responsibility of the photographer and we can't afford to place blame on the subject (even sometimes when it is warranted!). Hard to say what caused this but there is an issue with client preparation/comfort which does impact these images.
Sorry for the long-windedness. Again, I'm not even sure if an extended analysis of these images is either appreciated or welcome. I certainly mean no disrespect to the photographers and some folks may think that given our respective reputations on this forum I may be fighting beyond my weight limit. Nevertheless I did think there were some technical and lighting issues beyond style or taste at stake here that probably should be discussed in a critique. Come to think of it, a critique wasn't requested in the initial post. So before I go any further, please accept a preemptive mea culpa.
Andy, I dig the shots. Everything is to your normal standards minus his expression here and there. You lighting is something to achieve to. Processing is beast as well. Cheers my friend.
My favorite shot in the series is #7, which I feel conveys much more of a narrative quality than the rest of the shots. Fashion mags like Genlux frequently do their shoots in a storyboard style: for example, the fashion plates might tell the story of a highly stylized art theft.
I feel that emphasizing the storyboard concept might have added another layer of interest, and also possibly helped the subjects to sublimate themselves into "roles" rather than simply posing.
Evan Baines wrote:
That's a heck of a valuable critique. Whether or not you (OP, everyone else) choose to agree with that criticism, its outstandingly well-formulated and is worth consideration. Thanks for taking the time Todd... its posts like this that make this forum worth coming back to.
Yes it was outstanding and put into words my earlier vague thoughts, thank you Todd for verbalizing what we were all trying to say. I meant no ill will toward the client, if the OP feels I should remove my comments, I certainly will.
And it's great the clients love this. That's what we all strive for, it makes us happy. However that doesn't mean the photos are perfect or couldn't be better. The clients may not see the flaws that exist, but that does not justify those flaws or make them go away. Getting feedback like the above is invaluable. Both to the OP and everyone else. Things like this only improve all of us.
Thanks Todd, as always, that was informative and educational.
You guys are funny with your reviews. If you go and look at the work of the people that say the lighting needs work you see that they are available light shooters.
1. Many of those photos have more than 5 or 6 light sources guys. Sure it would be nice to have time to modify and sculpt the light more. You can always do that.
2. Many of the lights you are complaining about are lamps or overhead lighting. I will take an electrician with us next time to install dimmers.
Just giving critique without any thought to whether its actually possible is the real problem. I am open to things like you should have raised the light and feathered it. You know stuff you can actually do.
The lighting in these was meant to show multiple light sources from strange angles and it does.
I watch our stats regularly and while the photographers were talking about these pictures so were the brides and grooms on both a local board and national board. What become obvious was just how different these shots were. These images were outside the box. People either really liked that or they thought the images sucked. Since they are outside the box there wasn't room for people to really be in the middle.
The posing was ridged and stiff in these pictures the lighting moody and strange. These images look exactly like what we planned. Thats why some of the shots have over 6 lights.
I do wish these had been models would have been fun to have them do some of the poses we had in mind.
Many of the lighting patterns people complained about butterfly lighting, split lighting, rembrandt were done. One person even mentioned split lighting as an actual problem. Well split lighting is not a problem its just a style choice.
In the end angies images really hit the mark for us as a business. We have another one set up for this kind of shoot. Our original client was ecstatic and we had brides around the nation talking about our images. I had no clue that they would create that much pr otherwise we would have shot a set like this years ago. If the images were bad we wouldn't have had so many people talking about them.
Andy Wood wrote:
You guys are funny with your reviews.
You're work is pretty much universally admired by me and most in this forum. But I gotta be honest, the only thing "funny" about this thread, is that in the past you've complained about harsh, crude, or useless critiques that are more trolling than anything else, yet for once everybody gave decent, constructive and honest opinions on a session and you simply dismissed it all.
TRReichman wrote:
I know that Andy and Angie are very respected around these parts and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything to anyone. However I do think that Angie's statement about most of the "complaints" being stylistic in nature to perhaps not effectively address the lighting/technical concerns that some folks are expressing. It seems to me that in many cases while the lighting is contributing to the mood and style that the client requested it is actually working against the effectiveness of the images in many cases.
Take for example the look of the overall session - clearly it is low-key by design. In a low-key image the viewer's eye is immediately going to go to the brightest point in the image which ought to be the point of interest in a highly effective image.
For example, in image 1 the brightest point is actually the wall behind the girl's face, and the fact that her face is turned predominantly away from camera gives the viewer a confused image. Should they be looking at the guy first, who is lower key, the girl who is turned away and lost in the brighter wall? I think that the pose and lighting work against the effectiveness of the image.
In image 2 they are basically fighting the same thing in a different way. Granted, the pose/expressions on the subjects don't help alot for many folks, but the brightest point in the image is the right side of the frame. Since most of us critiquing the images are Westerners we are accustomed to scanning from left to right. Putting the brightest point in a low-key image on the extreme right and then trying to lead interest leftward causes more un-intentional visual tension. Its a shame because the poses naturally lead from left-to-right effectively but the light is working against the great posing.
Image 3 has a similar issue - brightest points are the wainscoting on the sides of the wall drawing your eye horizontally while the photographer almost certainly wants you eye going from the bottom-to-the-top or vice/versa viewing the subjects and reflections. Plus, the subjects in the up-down axis are much darker than the walls in the left-right axis which fights the posed point of interest.
Number 4 is better but the brightness of the wall behind him and the loud pattern on the wall really detract and the image would be rocking if that wall wasn't so bright. Stay tuned because they totally nail this in image 7.
I know some folks will fight me on this but 5 suffers from the same thing s the others though not as badly. I would rather see the subject's faces a little brighter and the wall behind them a little darker to help emphasis but some might disagree. I think this one would be more effective with a different lighting ratio that favored the subject instead of the background.
Image 6 is getting better though I'd like to see the window sill darkened down a bit. See how the image flows perfectly from left-to-right to the intended point of interest through composition and posing? Good stuff, but the lighting could be improved by darkening the background a bit.
I'll skip 7 for a second and hit 8 because I want to end on a good note. I think 8 suffers alot from the lighting. What is the brightest point in this image? Its the bck of her neck and jawbone and not their faces. This draws the viewer's eye somewhere we don't intend for it to linger and really adds weight to her face. Gotta cry foul on this one - would be better (imho!) without the light coming from camera-left.
So let's talk about 7 because it gets it all right. The image is composed to lead not only left-to-right but far-to-near. We start at the back of the frame and the brightest thing is the girl's face (!) and the background is nicely separated but darker than the subject. Then, her eyeline and the depth of the image lead us right to the next brightest point of the image which is the guy - perfect! We can ignore the bright spots on the right side wall because they don't overpower and we've been lead properly through the image. This is good composition and good lighting.
Ultimately I get that the client wanted a certain style and I think the style was achieved but at the cost of composition and effective emphasis. I think that the lighting, while it creates a great mood really detracts in many ways from the success of the images. I think that's why there was some conflict over these images from the posts - the light helped in some ways and hurt in others and some folks may have had a hard time articulating that.
I won't belabor the posing/expression thing because I hate to get involved in the "be kind/don't judge" discussion that's been going on. Suffice it to say that I agree that politeness is dying but it is an issue in these images. The subjects are admittedly not models but nevertheless they also do look pretty uncomfortable and it does detract from the images. Whether we like it or not the final image is the responsibility of the photographer and we can't afford to place blame on the subject (even sometimes when it is warranted!). Hard to say what caused this but there is an issue with client preparation/comfort which does impact these images.
Sorry for the long-windedness. Again, I'm not even sure if an extended analysis of these images is either appreciated or welcome. I certainly mean no disrespect to the photographers and some folks may think that given our respective reputations on this forum I may be fighting beyond my weight limit. Nevertheless I did think there were some technical and lighting issues beyond style or taste at stake here that probably should be discussed in a critique. Come to think of it, a critique wasn't requested in the initial post. So before I go any further, please accept a preemptive mea culpa.
Andy Wood wrote:
You guys are funny with your reviews. If you go and look at the work of the people that say the lighting needs work you see that they are available light shooters.
1. Many of those photos have more than 5 or 6 light sources guys. Sure it would be nice to have time to modify and sculpt the light more. You can always do that.
2. Many of the lights you are complaining about are lamps or overhead lighting. I will take an electrician with us next time to install dimmers.
Just giving critique without any thought to whether its actually possible is the real problem. I am open to things like you should have raised the light and feathered it. You know stuff you can actually do.
The lighting in these was meant to show multiple light sources from strange angles and it does.
I watch our stats regularly and while the photographers were talking about these pictures so were the brides and grooms on both a local board and national board. What become obvious was just how different these shots were. These images were outside the box. People either really liked that or they thought the images sucked. Since they are outside the box there wasn't room for people to really be in the middle.
The posing was ridged and stiff in these pictures the lighting moody and strange. These images look exactly like what we planned. Thats why some of the shots have over 6 lights.
I do wish these had been models would have been fun to have them do some of the poses we had in mind.
Many of the lighting patterns people complained about butterfly lighting, split lighting, rembrandt were done. One person even mentioned split lighting as an actual problem. Well split lighting is not a problem its just a style choice.
In the end angies images really hit the mark for us as a business. We have another one set up for this kind of shoot. Our original client was ecstatic and we had brides around the nation talking about our images. I had no clue that they would create that much pr otherwise we would have shot a set like this years ago. If the images were bad we wouldn't have had so many people talking about them.
If you're happy and the client is happy, then you've obviously accomplished your goals...
However, out of all the threads I've seen on this board in the last few months, this one has had the most precise, accurate and professional critiques. I'm surprised you're so dismissive of them.
VPell wrote:
You're work is pretty much universally admired by me and most in this forum. But I gotta be honest, the only thing "funny" about this thread, is that in the past you've complained about harsh, crude, or useless critiques that are more trolling than anything else, yet for once everybody gave decent, constructive and honest opinions on a session and you simply dismissed it all.
We had friends at the national level think these were amazing shots. Accomplished shooters. Should I dismiss what they said? How about should I dismiss what I think of these images? I haven't gotten where I am by disregarding what I think about photography, rather pursuing what I think.
Andy Wood wrote:
We had friends at the national level think these were amazing shots. Accomplished shooters. Should I dismiss what they said? How about should I dismiss what I think of these images? I haven't gotten where I am by disregarding what I think about photography, rather pursuing what I think.
Understandable, and again I think it seems like you were really happy with them... and it sounds like others were too, which is obviously great for you guys. But since you posted them here, it seemed as if you were wanting FM feedback, which lots of people gave. In that respect I was confused that you then didn't seem to care what they said.
